On 7 May, 15:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:29:07 on Thu, 7 May 2009, Chris
remarked:

I thought the residents in the vicinity of Maidenhead were opposed to
the ugly looking OHL? *Or have they come to terms with it now.

Do they have any choice? Permitted development on the railways means
that they don't need planning permissions....

Maybe, however Wikipedia claims the Crossrail Environmental Statement
includes:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.
--
Roland Perry

This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like

In message
, at
07:52:16 on Thu, 7 May 2009,
remarked:
"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.

This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like

Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?
--
Roland Perry

On 8 May, 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:52:16 on Thu, 7 May 2009,
remarked:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.

This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like

Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?
--
Roland Perry

Maidenhead isn't in a National Park

In message
, at
08:40:23 on Fri, 8 May 2009, remarked:
they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.

This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like

Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?

Maidenhead isn't in a National Park

But it's a Conservation Area.
--
Roland Perry

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
08:40:23 on Fri, 8 May 2009, remarked:
they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.

This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like

Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?

Maidenhead isn't in a National Park

But it's a Conservation Area.

Or even a Conservative area :-)

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On May 8, 6:31*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:52:16 on Thu, 7 May 2009,
remarked:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.

This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like

Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?
--
Roland Perry

IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

In message
, at
09:22:57 on Fri, 8 May 2009, 1506
remarked:
IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

And you might expect the residents of Maidenhead would welcome the
opportunity to export the pollution [1] to wherever the electricity is
generated. But they don't seem to like the visual impact of the
knitting.

[1] Which can also be visual, as well as chemical.
--
Roland Perry

1506 wrote:
On May 8, 6:31 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:52:16 on Thu, 7 May 2009,
remarked:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.
This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like
Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?
--
Roland Perry

IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

He would have insisted on using 3 phase 37.278kV* electrification at
16.25Hz fed through side contact 3rd and 4th rail - and bugger the
through running!

* there is a logic behind this number. See if you can work it out!

On Sat, 9 May 2009, GazK wrote:

1506 wrote:
On May 8, 6:31 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:52:16 on Thu, 7 May 2009,
remarked:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.
This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like
Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?

IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

He would have insisted on using 3 phase 37.278kV* electrification at 16.25Hz
fed through side contact 3rd and 4th rail - and bugger the through running!

* there is a logic behind this number. See if you can work it out!

Dunno, but getting three-phase power through two conductors is an
interesting idea.

tom

--
These spoiled youths forget that when they are shaven they look like
boiled potatoes. -- Tara Singh

Tom Anderson wrote:


IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.

He would have insisted on using 3 phase 37.278kV* electrification at
16.25Hz fed through side contact 3rd and 4th rail - and bugger the
through running!

* there is a logic behind this number. See if you can work it out!

Dunno, but getting three-phase power through two conductors is an
interesting idea.

tom


.... running rail(s) for the third phase. I'm not making this up, it has
been done before, in Italy and elsewhe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway...urrent_systems